Sri Lanka only have themselves to blame

After another compelling final day of unremitting tension, the prisoners-turned-groundstaff at the Asgiriya International Stadium trooped back to their grim jailhouse until the next hill-country match. They could be given for harbouring conspiratorial thoughts because they had witnessed one of the great escapes. In terms of jailhouse breakouts, England's survival in Kandy was Houdini-like. Sri Lanka should have taken a 1-0 lead but they ended up packing their bags hurriedly and leaving the hills like losers. England could hardly believe their luck: despite being thoroughly outplayed after 10 days of test cricket, they start on Thursday with a chance of clinching the series.

The truth is that Sri Lanka only have themselves to blame. True, the umpiring was woeful once more. Poor Murali. How many times did he have fair-looking lbw appeals turned down? And then there was Graham Thorpe reprieved off glove on 21, plus, crucially, the obdurate Gareth Batty let-off at bat-pad just before the final hour. But Sri Lanka were fortunate too: Mark Butcher's dismissal on the penultimate evening was marginal while Thorpe's eventual caught behind was harsh. Nevertheless, although the umpiring scoreline favoured England again, Sri Lanka should have wrapped up the match.

How England survived for 140 overs against Murali on a fifth day pitch will forever remain a mystery. Michael Vaughan's hundred was a victory for sheer bloody-mindedness no doubt. A marathon of skill, patience and self-denial, he proved that the burden of leadership need not hinder his productivity as a batsman. Unfortunately his counterpart, Hashan Tillakaratne, proved very little. His captaincy was, quite frankly, appalling.

I'm sorry, but it just made no sense. When Paul Collingwood was at the crease, blocking for Britain against the world's most dangerous spinner, there were three fielders on the legside boundary and one on the point fence. Mid off was three quarters of the way back to the sightscreen. Why? Did Tillakaratne really fear losing despite a virtually impossible 368 run target? It seems he did.

And why did he wait 41 overs before taking the second new ball? Murali was bowling well - when does he bowl badly? - but it was the new ball that hastened the end of England's first innings and there was no justification for waiting until the final hour before taking the new cherry. Murali, who bowled 56 overs in the innings, was exhausted and he would have been better served with some respite. Chaminda Vaas, a man with over 200 test wickets and a knack for breaking partnerships, bowled just nine overs in the final two sessions. We thought he must be sick having seen him vomit at the end of his run just after lunch, but it turns out he was fine.

Tillakaratne's tactics astonished the English media -and the English team. David Hopps from the Guardian wrote: "Sri Lanka also suffered for the negativity of their captain. England's target of 368, from their overnight 89-2, looked out of the question, but Vaughan's favoured cover drive was respected with a sweeper and Thorpe's slog sweep, which he never played, with a deep backward square. On another occasion, Paul Collingwood found himself blocking Sanath Jayasuriya to two fielders in the deep on the leg side." Derek Pringle, the chief cricket correspondent of the Telegraph, was equally surprised: Derek Pringle: "When the final day's play began, England were two wickets down and 279 runs in arrears. Only Ian Botham, at his most optimistic, would have contemplated the win. Yet, until Vaughan was seventh man out 40 minutes after tea Tillekeratne had at least four men on the boundary. It was an unacceptably negative tactic, even without a bowler of Murali's verve."

Afterwards, Tillakaratne was defensive. Why did you take the new ball so late? "I think I took it at the right time." Was Chaminda Vaas ok? "He gave 100%." Are you not worried by the team's inability to knock over the tail? "The boys worked really hard but unfortunately we were not able to finish them off."

Tillakaratne was petrified of losing - a record of six draws and one loss in seven matches speaks for itself. Yet Sri Lanka's best chance of winning was for England's batsmen to play strokes. Sri Lanka have struggled to take wickets in the second innings of both tests. Why? Because in the first innings their batters were dismissed while they hunted for runs. In the second innings they were content to dead-bat Sri Lanka's spinners on a pitch that refused to crumble. Tillakaratne should have teased England's batsmen into fanciful hopes of winning. He should have encouraged the natural urge to be a hero. Instead, he chose a no-risk strategy that was foiled by stubborn defence and poor umpiring.

Bizarrely, the result is that England start the third and final test with a psychological advantage. No matter that Sri Lanka have dominated the past two contests, England are on a high. They arrived on the island saying that their best chance of a series win was to hang in there until the final test and their dream has come true. On an SSC pitch that should offer their swing bowlers hope, Vaughan's young side sense the opportunity of a famous victory. Sri Lanka, meanwhile, are scratching their heads, wondering quite how England wriggled free. They may blame the umpires - who have admittedly had a wretched series - but they would be better served looking at their approach. Tillakaratne Dilshan showed them the value of positivity with two stunning innings - they must take note.